The failings of live news coverage | Stuff.co.nz

I woke yesterday morning to the heartbreaking news of the Boston Marathon bombings, a reprehensible act of cowardice from an individual (or group) who deserve to be caught and punished. My thoughts and sympathies are with the victims, both deceased and injured, and the families of those hurt.

The television coverage, on the other hand, left me a little cold.

"TERROR ATTACK AT BOSTON MARATHON," shouted the banner across the bottom of the screen as Erin Burnett took over anchoring the CNN feed yesterday around 11am. The rotating text on the banner kept throwing up catchy headlines like "Terrorist attack hits US city during running of Boston Marathon" and "Like something out of a war zone."

They continued to use the word "terror" over and over, despite also running a ticker note that read "Barack Obama does not use word 'terror' to describe attacks". CNN knows better, I guess.

Burnett started her segment by taking a look at "this rapidly developing story" (quote), before rapidly giving us the same details - literally, the exact same details - and looping the same 40-second highlight (lowlight?) reel we had been watching for the past few hours. There was no new information. Nobody was announcing anything in an official capacity.

One other thing that bothered me: Burnett invoked the Oklahoma City Bombing and Waco Siege, both of which happened on April 19 - in 1995 and 1993, respectively - because of the closeness to the date. She might as well have mentioned the sinking of the Titanic or the Hillsborough Disaster for all that any of these events are connected.

Then there are the injury statistics: as of 11.15am yesterday, CNN was reporting two deaths and "110+ injured". Meanwhile, BBC World was merely saying "dozens" and Fox News had the number as low as 26 injured.

Worse, many details were appearing, then disappearing, at an alarming rate. For example, reports emerged that there had been another incident at the JFK Library, which was eventually revealed to be an unrelated mechanical fault in the building. CNN kept running a ticker that explained there was a third event at the JFK Library, even after news websites and Twitter feeds were reporting that it was unrelated to the marathon attacks.

As Media3 host Russell Brown tweeted yesterday morning, "The sheer quantity of misinformation being delivered then discarded by major US media organisations in the wake of the bombings is striking."

By 11am, our own TV One and TV3 had returned to regular programming (Cowboy Builders on One, The Shopping Channel on TV3) after extending their Breakfast and Firstline shows an hour and promising extended coverage in the 12pm and 6pm broadcasts.

I prefer the TV One/TV3 method here: spend a bit of time on the events through till the first few press conferences, then come back to it later (and interrupt programming with any big developments).

And I understand that CNN (and Fox News, CNBC, and the rest) are dedicated news channels. News is their thing, and this was the biggest news story of the day*. Heck, as late as 7.30 last night, the bombings were still the only story being covered on CNN, Fox News and CNBC.

But what exactly is achieved by spending hours and hours going over the same scant details of the exact same story accompanied by the exact same short loop of footage? Why not return to regularly scheduled programming, let the Boston Marathon attacks inform the discussion topics, and come back to it during the day as things develop?

If anything, the repetitive "we're not telling you anything new" routine of the major US news channels made me appreciate our own channels more. The CNN coverage, for example, was very details-based, going over what happened from a thousand different perspectives and speculating on details they would have to retract later.

But can you remember the TV One and TV3 coverage after the Christchurch earthquake? A different kind of tragedy, sure, but it was reporters seeking unique stories, covering developments closely, crossing live to inspiring stories of survival from those affected by what had happened, and giving hope to those of us in other parts of the country.

A tweet from NBC Sports Network yesterday said "Reports of Marathon Runners that crossed finish line and continued to run to Mass General Hospital [around a mile from the finish line at Copley Square] to give blood to victims". I can't recall seeing that story on CNN during the time I was watching.**

Perhaps that kind of coverage would be more inspiring, more hopeful, than the umpteenth repeat of blurry explosion footage and an unconfirmed report that will be gone in a few minutes.

Did you watch any of the coverage from Boston yesterday? What were your thoughts on how the event was handled? And how do you feel about live news channels as a whole?

(*) Please do not - please do not - fill the comments with references to the series of car bombings in Iraq, or the caf? fire in China, or the boating accident in Greymouth, or anything else. We're talking about an American channel here; of course they spent more time on the Boston Marathon than they did on anything else.

(**) By the way, this tweet - and the fact that Twitter announced that the JFK Library event was unrelated a full eon before television - proves what we probably already knew: Twitter is better for live news than live news channels.

Make sure you like?On the Box on Facebook?and add?Chris on Twitter.
Or, feel free to?email Chris?with any questions or ideas.
This is a spoiler-free blog - please comment responsibly.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/blogs/on-the-box/8558527/The-failings-of-live-news-coverage

lebron james NASA asteroid cruise ship Asteroid 2012 DA14 Reeva Steenkamp rubio